[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111003162905.GA3752@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 18:29:05 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3.1.0-rc4-tip 5/26] Uprobes: copy of the original
instruction.
On 09/20, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>
> +static int __copy_insn(struct address_space *mapping,
> + struct vm_area_struct *vma, char *insn,
> + unsigned long nbytes, unsigned long offset)
> +{
> + struct file *filp = vma->vm_file;
> + struct page *page;
> + void *vaddr;
> + unsigned long off1;
> + unsigned long idx;
> +
> + if (!filp)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + idx = (unsigned long) (offset >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT);
> + off1 = offset &= ~PAGE_MASK;
> +
> + /*
> + * Ensure that the page that has the original instruction is
> + * populated and in page-cache.
> + */
Hmm. But how we can ensure?
> + page_cache_sync_readahead(mapping, &filp->f_ra, filp, idx, 1);
This schedules the i/o,
> + page = grab_cache_page(mapping, idx);
This finds/locks the page in the page-cache,
> + if (!page)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + vaddr = kmap_atomic(page);
> + memcpy(insn, vaddr + off1, nbytes);
What if this page is not PageUptodate() ?
Somehow this assumes that the i/o was already completed, I don't
understand this.
But I am starting to think I simply do not understand this change.
To the point, I do not underestand why do we need copy_insn() at all.
We are going to replace this page, can't we save/analyze ->insn later
when we copy the content of the old page? Most probably I missed
something simple...
> +static struct task_struct *get_mm_owner(struct mm_struct *mm)
> +{
> + struct task_struct *tsk;
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + tsk = rcu_dereference(mm->owner);
> + if (tsk)
> + get_task_struct(tsk);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + return tsk;
> +}
Hmm. Do we really need task_struct?
> -static int install_breakpoint(struct mm_struct *mm, struct uprobe *uprobe)
> +static int install_breakpoint(struct mm_struct *mm, struct uprobe *uprobe,
> + struct vm_area_struct *vma, loff_t vaddr)
> {
> - /* Placeholder: Yet to be implemented */
> + struct task_struct *tsk;
> + unsigned long addr;
> + int ret = -EINVAL;
> +
> if (!uprobe->consumers)
> return 0;
>
> - atomic_inc(&mm->mm_uprobes_count);
> - return 0;
> + tsk = get_mm_owner(mm);
> + if (!tsk) /* task is probably exiting; bail-out */
> + return -ESRCH;
> +
> + if (vaddr > TASK_SIZE_OF(tsk))
> + goto put_return;
But this should not be possible, no? How it can map this vaddr above
TASK_SIZE ?
get_user_pages(tsk => NULL) is fine. Why else do we need mm->owner ?
Probably used by the next patches... Say, is_32bit_app(tsk). This
can use mm->context.ia32_compat (hopefully will be replaced with
MMF_COMPAT).
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists